Context: Recent years have seen a wave of litigation relating to alleged infringement of video and audio coding standard-essential patents (SEPs) by TV broadcasters and online streaming platforms. Among the most high-profile set of these disputes is the ongoing barrage of litigation faced by The Walt Disney Company in multiple jurisdictions (November 1, 2026 ip fray article); though many of these disputes date back several years (December 24, 2023 ip fray article).
What’s new & direct impact: 10 industry associations from around the world, including the Motion Picture Association (MPA), have penned an open letter to government bodies alleging “abuse” by SEP holders enforcing patents against their streamers and broadcasters.
Wider ramifications:
- Of particular note are the open letter’s claims regarding “potential downstream effects for customers” as a result of SEP disputes. It states that alleged “abuse” on the part of SEP holders “will directly harm consumers… and lower the quality of viewing experiences”.
- In some regions, injunctions have forced streamers to remove certain features; SEP holder InterDigital, for example, has won injunctions against Disney in Brazil, Germany, and at the UPC which has seen the U.S. company reduce functionality on its platforms, much to the chagrin of its subscribers (September 25, 2026 ip fray article).
- It’s worth pointing out, though, that Disney—or other streamers in a similar position—could typically solve many such disputes by taking a pool license covering multiple SEP holder portfolios, alongside bilateral licenses where necessary (May 17, 2026 ip fray article; June 1, 2026 ip fray article)
The open letter was sent to United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John A. Squires, as well as officials responsible for intellectual property, business, and competition matters within the governments of Brazil, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.
The co-signatories argue that the actions of some SEP holders are “undermining the open standardization setting process for video streaming technologies used in our services”.
They appear to acknowledge the importance of standards such as AVC and HEVC in enabling “reliable, high-quality” content across competing platforms, with relevant SEPs licensed on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
However, they go on to claim that “a growing list of SEP holders—many of which invest primarily in lawyers and litigation—have abandoned that key principle [of FRAND licensing] when it comes to video streaming standards.”
The open letter further alleges that some SEP holders “promise to license their patents on FRAND terms to persuade standard setting bodies” to incorporate their patented technologies into the relevant standards:
“But once the standard is widely adopted, they renege on that promise and demand excessive royalties on threat of an injunction secured by filing lawsuits in a handful of jurisdictions where such injunctions are routinely granted without timely review of the validity of the asserted patents or before a final determination of infringement.”
In particular, the co-signatories single out the Munich I Regional Court’s guidelines proposing a FRAND framework for streaming SEPs (August 17, 2026 ip fray article), which they claim “would be staggering for the industry” if adopted as outlined.
The open letter is co-signed by:
- Association of Commercial Television and Video on Demand Services in Europe
- Commercial On-Demand and Broadcasting Association
- Motion Picture Association
- Streaming Innovation Alliance
- Strima
- Asociación Española de Video on Demand
- European Video On Demand Coalition
- Streaming for Australia
- Streamingdiensten Nederland
- Television Association of Programmers Latin America